Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

[Vonsalza]

And you think that scenario works for guns. Let’s ban guns. Drugs will get through because of demand, but guns won’t.

That’s just the false equivalency your “logic” is trying to force in order to avoid admitting it’s wrong.

I don’t think a ban/heavy restriction will completely solve the problem.

And I think I’ve said that repeatedly, Jon.

Repeatedly.

But will it dramatically improve the situation? Many (very soon to be “most”) seem to think so.

As such, if a ban/heavy regulation solves 99.9% of the problem,

Oh, look. Here’s yet another example in-post of my admitting it’s not a 100% solution…

Really, Jon? Really?

continuing…

Oh, you mean like the war on drugs has worked so well. I see. :crazy_face:

It depends on what you define by success. If you use utterly impossible 100% effectiveness as a standard, it’s been a total failure.

But the only people who use that standard are those who don’t live in a real world.

Hard numbers of “How much is estimated to come in vs how much is seized” appears to be kinda hard to come by, but most sources I’m reading right now seems to think our border patrol does a hell of a job, by and large.

They’re not perfect, sure. But that’s a standard employed only by genuinely stupid people.

Here’s the difference: civilian ownership of firearms is a right! It is a protected right. It is not going to go away. Americans will own guns!

Sure. Just not certain guns.

Take, for instance, our heavy restrictions on fully automatic weapons. Because of the law AND how long its been on the books, it’s fairly rare to encounter a man or woman that owns one.

That shattering noise you just heard was your “inevitability” argument breaking.

Once you stop dreaming that you can impose a ban on law abiding civilians only,

Again, a “ban” seems to work just fine with full-autos Jon. Open those eyes.

 

[JonNC]

That’s just the false equivalency your “logic” is trying to force in order to avoid admitting it’s wrong.

I don’t think a ban/heavy restriction will completely solve the problem.

And I think I’ve said that repeatedly, Jon.

It is a very real equivalency. And it won’t solve the problem because a ban on semiautomatics will not happen. There are well over 100,000,000 in private hands. That won’t change.

Repeatedly.

But will it dramatically improve the situation? Many (very soon to be “most”) seem to think so.

Maybe, but many of those who have semiautomatics will not give them up.

Oh, look. Here’s yet another example in-post of my admitting it’s not a 100% solution…

Really, Jon? Really?

It isn’t a solution at all. It won’t happen. Smart Americans will not give them up. Additionally, law abiding citizens with legally owned firearms of any type are a drop in the gun murder bucket. You’re not soling the problem by going after the firearms of the law abiding, even if you could get them (which you can’t).

Sure. Just not certain guns.

Take, for instance, our heavy restrictions on fully automatic weapons. Because of the law AND how long its been on the books, it’s fairly rare to encounter a man or woman that owns one.

There is a huge difference between the number of semiautomatics in the hands of tens and tens of millions of Americans today, and the relative few automatics in the mid 1930’s. Automatics were not the guns of choice then, by law abiding citizens. Semiautomatics are, by far, the guns of choice today by law abiding citizens. Yours is a false comparison.
It being the firearm of choice, and the fact that there are over one hundred million in private hands, thankfully not in a central government registry, makes it virtually impossible to confiscate them. Finally, the owners today consider it a right to have them. And they are correct. An attempt at confiscation of semiautomatic firearms would be futile, and sadly, bloody.

 

[JonNC]

The American people have had the discussion, several times, they just come to a different decision on gun rights than you prefer. It’s why the Left has to rely largely on anti-Constitution means to try to implement their Utopian vision.

Utopian? Don’t you mean authoritarian?

 

[JonNC]

Again, a “ban” seems to work just fine with full-autos Jon.

There is one more issue with the foolish attempt to ban semiautomatics from the law abiding, and that is conservatives have witnessed how sanctuary cities and states work. Any attempt to confiscate semiautomatics necessarily have to go through the states. I think we would see many states issue sanctuary status on firearms and continue the sale of them and ammunition for them if the general government tried to seize them.

 

[Vonsalza]

There are well over 100,000,000 ib private hands. That won’t change.

Of course it will. Time and chance slowly claims most everything.

Lets not kid ourselves, most of these gun owners don’t store them clean, oiled and in moisture controlled safes.

There were 200k Ithaca 31s made. So you think there are STILL 200k Ithaca 31s out there?
Don’t be silly…

Maybe, but many of those who have semiautomatics will not give them up.

On of the beauties of a “ban” (or heavy restriction) is the ones already out there get WAYYY more expensive on the black market; which makes them less available.
Win-win!

There is a huge difference between the number of semiautomatics in the hands of tens and tens of millions of Americans today…

Time and chance claims everything Jon. Even plastic guns. And again, a de jure ban makes the ones out there instantly more expensive - achieving the same end.

Again, win-win.

An attempt at confiscation of semiautomatic firearms would be futile, and sadly, bloody.

No one is mentioning confiscation. Stop with the boogey-men, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

On of the beauties of a “ban” (or heavy restriction) is the ones already out there get WAYYY more expensive on the black market; which makes them less available.

Win-win!

Sanctuary states would and should continue production.

No one is mentioning confiscation. Stop with the boogey-men, Jon.

Sure they are. Read the leftist press.
The boogey man in this issue is the claim that law abiding citizens, that the NRA are the cause of shootings. That’s the lie out there driving the gun ban issue. I’m not making anything up.

I Googled, “time to ban the second amendment” .
The NYT, Chicago Tribune, and many other so-called mainstream news outlets, calling for bans, confiscations, the elimination of the 2nd. So, contrary to your claim, it is all over the leftist media. It is the not-so-secret policy of the progressive movement.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sanctuary states would and should continue production.

Since your defensive theorycrafting has now been pushed fully of the rails of rationality, let’s answer the pertinent question;

The dragons. What are we going to do when the aliens invade and unleash the dragons on us?

Sure they are. Read the leftist press.

For anyone looking for an excellent example of baseless, extemporaneous hand-waving; here ya go.

I Googled, “time to ban the second amendment”.

Man… That’s some pretty serious “Googling”. That alone is sufficient to convince me. I yield.

 

[dvdjs]

I Googled, “time to ban the second amendment” .

So did I. Here is what I got:

No results found for “time to ban the second amendment”.
Results for time to ban the second amendments (without quotes): …

 

[JonNC]

Since your defensive theorycrafting has now been pushed fully of the rails of rationality, let’s answer the pertinent question;

Really? Do you deceive yourself that much that you think Texans and others in fly over country won’t demand their states stand up to central government tyranny?
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/...cond-amendment-rights-underway-in-washington/

https://www.gunowners.org/statealert10112016.htm

(http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/1-state-aims-to-be-sanctuary-state-for-gun-rights/)

And you’ll see more and more. At least I hope so.

For anyone looking for an excellent example of baseless, extemporaneous hand-waving; here ya go.

No. I don’t think the leftist press is any of these. I think they really believe in what they write.

Man… That’s some pretty serious “Googling”. That alone is sufficient to convince me. I yield.

“Ignore that man behind the curtain.” “We just want some common sense gun laws, you know, to protect the children.”
Real attempts to protect the children are scoffed at by progressives, because all they want is a gun ban (on the law abiding).

 

[JonNC]

time to ban the second amendment Without quotes.
First page

About 10,300,000 results (0.50 seconds)
Search Results

Why the Second Amendment is irrelevant - Chicago Tribune
www.chicagotribune.com/.../ct-perspec-chapman-second-amendment-20180223-story…
Feb 23, 2018 - These rules predated the Supreme Court’s momentous 2008 decision striking down the District of Columbia’s complete ban on handguns. It was the first time the court had ever ruled that a gun control statute violated the Second Amendment. The court said individuals have the right to own guns for …

The Second Amendment Is No Barrier to Stricter Gun Laws - NYMag
nymag.com/daily/.../the-second-amendment-is-no-barrier-to-stricter-gun-laws.html
6 days ago - In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, legislators there and in New York sprang to action and passed stringent bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines — the very kind Adam Lanza, the school shooter, had in his possession at the time of the …

Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons? Four …
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../does-the-second-amendment-really-protect-assault-…
Feb 22, 2018 - It was not the first time a federal appeals court had ruled that a ban on assault weapons was permissible under the Second Amendment. It was the fourth time in the past decade. In fact, no federal appeals court has ever held that assault weapons are protected. The question of assault weapons was not …

Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment - The New York Times

Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment (Published 2017)

It sounds like political Mission Impossible. But it’s the only meaningful way to stop the killing.

www.nytimes.com

Oct 5, 2017 - I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment. From a … Subscribe to The Times. Given all of … The civilian AR-15 is not a true “assault rifle,” and banning such rifles would have little effect on the overall murder rate, since most homicides are committed with handguns. It’s not …

Assault weapons not protected under the Second Amendment, rules …
www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
Feb 22, 2018 - A federal appeals court has ruled that the assault weapons banned by the state of Maryland are not protected under the Second Amendment of the US … in the previous case it was ruled that “that the Second Amendment protects arms that are 'in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defence.

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to reject 2nd Amendment …

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to reject 2nd Amendment claim by men who lost gun rights over nonviolent crimes

Trump administration lawyers are urging the Supreme Court to reject a 2nd Amendment claim that would restore the right to own a gun for two Pennsylvania men who were convicted more than 20 years ago of nonviolent crimes.

www.latimes.com

May 25, 2017 - “They could dismiss the appeal at any time. But I have no reason to expect they will.” Gura said the federal law had been misapplied to individuals whose crimes didn’t merit a lifetime ban against exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to own a gun. This has “nothing to do with disarming dangerous felons,” …

Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment - Rolling Stone
https://www.rollingstone.com/.../why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-…
Jun 13, 2016 - Why Second Amendment must be repealed, and it is the essence of American democracy to say so.

 

[dvdjs]

time to ban the second amendment Without quotes.

First page

It is easy to see why the search as tendered produced no results.

Only the NYT Op-Ed and The Rolling Stone items call for a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

And I hope that you took a moment to take in the fullness of what these writers were saying:
For example, the NYT Op-Ed included this passage:

Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, I do, but any call for the repeal of the 2nd is a de facto banning of firearms. It makes gun ownership subject to government power, and not a right.
So saying, “it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either”, is an intentional deception.

 

[dvdjs]

but any call for the repeal of the 2nd is a de facto banning of firearms.

Objectively, it is not.

is an intentional deception.

To make such a judgement justly requires information that you have not presented here.

 

[JonNC]

Objectively, it is not.

Objectively, it clearly and overtly is. The 2nd, like all other amendments, is legal protection of the pre-existing right, not granted by government, but instead existing prior to government. Repeal of the 2nd does not end the right (government can no more end a right than it can grant one), it simple subjects it to government power.

To make such a judgement justly, requires information that you have not presented here.

Simply read the Heller decision. Read the Federalist and the framers. Facts are facts. if you take away the legal protection of the right, government then determines if you have access to that right. It doesn’t have to be the 2nd. It can be any right. If government power is in control of a right, then it becomes a privilege, because government can then take it away. That is a ban, pure and simple. Oh, you may still have a firearm, but your right to it is now banned, compromised by government power… It is no longer yours.

 

[dvdjs]

Objectively, it clearly and overtly is. The …

The question, however, was whether or not repeal is de facto banning.
It is not. In fact the Op-Ed pointed to nations with not constitutional guarantee that have not banned firearms

Simply read

The information that you need is the the unspoken motivation of the author of the Op-Ed. Without that it cannot, be siad, justly, that he is engaged in intentional deception.

 

[JonNC]

The question, however, was whether or not repeal is de facto banning.

It is not. In fact the Op-Ed pointed to nations with not constitutional guarantee that have not banned firearms

I just explained it to you. We do not live in other countries. In fact, our constitution was devised, in part, as a response to what other countries did, and do. It bans the right, and therefore makes ownership subject to the whims of government power.

The information that you need is the the unspoken motivation of the author of the Op-Ed. Without that it cannot, be siad, justly, that he is engaged in intentional deception.

Are you implying that he is ignorant of these writings? Okay, if that is the case, then I rescind the claim of deception.
But it must be one or the other. One cannot read the facts of the constitution, the framers, the SCOTUS decisions, and come to the conclusion that rescinding the protection of the right does not place ownership of firearms in the power of government, instead of an individual right.
Whether the writer is deceiving or ignorant, the effect is the same: repealing the second amendment is de facto banning of fire arms. You no longer have a control of the individual right. Government has replaced that right with its own power.

 

[dvdjs]

It bans the right

Repealing the possession of arms as a right, does not de facto ban possession of arms.
a repeal might or might not lead to a ban, but the repeal is not a ban.

Are you implying that he is ignorant of these writings?

I make no such claim about things that I do not know about other people. That includes what the author may or may not have read, what his underlying motivations are, or what his ultimate goal is.

 

[JonNC]

Repealing the possession of arms as a right, does not de facto ban possession of arms.

a repeal might or might not lead to a ban, but the repeal is not a ban.

JonNC:

Yes. It does. A repeal might or might not lead to a ban? Can you not see how that is, de facto, a ban? The ownership no longer exists. You may have it in your possession, but you are no longer in control of it. It is now subject to government power.

I make no such claim about things that I do not know about other people. That includes what the author may or may not have read, what his underlying motivations are, or what his ultimate goal is.

If someone were to say that we should repeal the protection of the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, that it may or may not lead to people being subject to cruel or unusual punishment, would you not agree with me that one can no longer claim that as a right?

 

[Rau]

The American people have had the discussion, several times, they just come to a different decision on gun rights than you prefer.

That’s not what I see. I see no substantive discussion about how the availability of guns might be better controlled that doesn’t presume the Constitutions words cannot be changed. It’s all about how they could be “interpreted”. How legislatures might “work around them”. And of course we have some arguing that the 2nd amendment is tantamount to the very word of God! And God said “guns for all”! (Except machine guns ).

 

[dvdjs]

Yes. It does. A repeal might or might not lead to a ban? Can you not see how that is, de facto, a ban? The ownership no longer exists.

I cannot see it as a de facto ban, because it is not a de facto ban. A ban, to me, means outlawing possession. I see not reasons to suspect that if there were no second amendment that the possession of guns would be outlawed.

I don’t think that there is constitutional guaranteed that I may own a home. Nevertheless, I do own a home, and do enjoy constitutions guarantees against it being taken without due process.

If someone were to say that we should repeal the protection of the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, that it may or may not lead to people being subject to cruel or unusual punishment, would you not agree with me that one can no longer claim that as a right?

One could no longer claim that the right is explicitly protected in the Constitution. WHowever it would remain arguable that is fundamental human right, or a right that is given life and substance by penumbras, formed by emanations from other explicit Constitutional guarantees.